USCA11 Case: 23-10010 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10010
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
In re: ERIC WATKINS,
Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:19-mc-63180-WPD
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 23-10010 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10010
Eric Watkins, proceeding pro se, filed a motion seeking leave
to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional claims
stemming from his suspension from a public library. Watkins al-
leged that, on December 5, 2018, he was sitting quietly in the li-
brary like other patrons, when a library supervisor handed him a
notice that he was being suspended from the library for 90 days.
He was escorted out by police and library security. According to
the complaint, the library supervisor failed to disclose a reason for
suspending Watkins either at the time she served the notice or later
when he appealed the decision. Watkins won the appeal, but not
before losing access to the library for more than a month. Watkins
claims that, by suspending him without reason, the library super-
visor violated his constitutional right to patronize a public library
and discriminated against him by treating him differently than sim-
ilarly situated patrons.
Watkins is a serial litigant who is subject to a filing injunction
that prevents him from filing any new lawsuit in the Southern Dis-
trict of Florida without prior court approval. In a prior case, we
affirmed the filing injunction so long as the court merely screened
out the “frivolous and malicious” claims and allowed the “argua-
ble” or “colorable” claims to go forward. See Watkins v. Dubreuil,
820 F. App’x 940, 948–49 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omit-
ted). Here, the district court screened Watkins’s proposed pleading
and determined he did not present an arguable case. Watkins ap-
peals.
USCA11 Case: 23-10010 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 Page: 3 of 5
23-10010 Opinion of the Court 3
In general, we review de novo the legal sufficiency of a claim,
accepting the factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Mitch-
ell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Yet “[a] determi-
nation of frivolity is best left to the district court, and we will re-
view such determinations only for abuse of discretion.” Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). In reviewing for frivol-
ity, the court may consider facts outside the complaint, including
“a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.” Id. at
1350; see also Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636,
640–41 (11th Cir. 1990). Because the district court screened for fri-
volity and considered facts outside the complaint, we review for an
abuse of discretion.
“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in
law or fact.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349; see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989) (frivolity “embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”). Moreover,
even if a complaint legally states a claim and the facts are not fan-
tastic, a dismissal on grounds of frivolousness might be justified in
certain narrow circumstances, such as a “questionable claim” by a
litigant with a “long history of bringing unmeritorious litigation.”
Clark, 915 F.2d at 640–41. Any finding of frivolity must have sup-
port in the record, however. See id. (vacating and remanding where
“the record in this case establishes no explanation for concluding
that [the] case is frivolous”). The court may not simply “adopt[] a
presumption of frivolity in these cases.” Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv.
Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 519 (11th Cir. 1991).
USCA11 Case: 23-10010 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10010
Here, Watkins’s allegations arguably suggest he was denied
equal protection when he was singled out for suspension from the
library without reason. 1 See Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala., 618 F.3d
1240, 1263–64 (11th Cir. 2010) (“To prevail on a class of one equal
protection claim, Plaintiffs must show they were intentionally
treated differently from others who were similarly situated and
that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”).
Watkins alleged that no reason was ever given for the suspension.
And we cannot infer anything about the grounds for the suspension
since he prevailed in appealing it. Nor is there anything in the pro-
posed complaint to suggest that Watkins was not similarly situated
with other library patrons. Plus, Watkins’s allegations are not fan-
ciful or wildly implausible.
In denying leave to file, the district court primarily relied on
Watkins’s litigation history, which we have described as “largely,
though not entirely, meritless.” Watkins, 820 F. App’x at 946–47.
But while the court suspected that the lawsuit was frivolous and
consistent with a pattern of instigating a conflict and then suing,
the court conceded it could not determine whether there was a ba-
sis for the library suspension without further information relating
to the content of the suspension notice. Because the current record
does not support a finding of frivolity, dismissal—or, as here, denial
of leave to file a complaint—was not appropriate. See Clark, 915
1 Because we conclude that further proceedings are warranted on Watkins’s
claims, we do not at this time address any potential procedural or substantive
claim based on a protected liberty interest to be in a public library.
USCA11 Case: 23-10010 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 Page: 5 of 5
23-10010 Opinion of the Court 5
F.2d at 640–41; Cofield, 936 F.2d at 519 (rejecting application of a
presumption of frivolity).
Instead, to the extent more information is necessary to
screen Watkins’s pleadings for frivolity under the filing injunction,
the district court may make reasonable demands for it. See Harris
v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 740 (11th Cir. 1987) (in reviewing for fri-
volity, “a district court must conduct a sufficient inquiry into the
matter to be certain both legally and factually that the plaintiff has
little or no chance of success”). The court is not bound by the facts
alleged in the complaint and “may require the plaintiff to particu-
larize his allegations prior to service of process, and may ascertain
whether there is a factual basis for the petitioner’s suit.” Id. (cita-
tion and quotation marks omitted).
Because the district court did not exercise this inquiry au-
thority here, and because the current record does not support a
finding of frivolity, we vacate and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.